Executive Summary
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Motorola Mobility LLC et al. vs Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsCyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.vsCLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology's IPR challenge against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s virtual clothing measurement patent. The Board found no motivation in the prior art (Grinspun and Graphicxtras) to combine them to achieve the claimed method of measuring 2D patterns with separation awareness.
Amazon.com et al.vsNL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their inter partes review dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.